Archive:May 2018

1
California Supreme Court Provides Clarity to California’s Prompt Payment Exception
2
The Tenth Circuit’s Prediction: New York State Likely to Follow Trend Recognizing Damages Caused by Subcontractor’s Faulty Work is a Covered “Occurrence”

California Supreme Court Provides Clarity to California’s Prompt Payment Exception

By: Timothy L. Pierce and Heather L. Frisch

The California Supreme Court issued an opinion on 14 May 2018 in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co. that resolves a split in authority regarding whether Civil Code Section 8814 excuses prompt payment of retention by an owner or prime contractor if a good faith dispute of any kind exists between the parties or only when there is a dispute over the work for which the retention is due. The Court held that a contractor is only entitled to withhold retention when there is a dispute arising out of the work on which the retention is based.

Read More

The Tenth Circuit’s Prediction: New York State Likely to Follow Trend Recognizing Damages Caused by Subcontractor’s Faulty Work is a Covered “Occurrence”

By: Frederic J. Giordano, Stephanie S. Gomez                     

The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit recently issued a favorable decision for policyholders finding property damage arising from a subcontractor’s faulty work arose from an accidental “occurrence” under New York law.  In Black & Veatch Corp. v. Aspen Ins. (UK) Ltd,[1] a 2–1 Tenth Circuit panel agreed with Black & Veatch Corp. (B&V) that its excess policy — which contained a New York choice-of-law provision — covered claims for property damage to a third party caused by its subcontractor’s faulty work.[2]  The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling that B&V’s subcontractor’s faulty work caused damage to only B&V’s own work and, therefore, was not a covered “occurrence.”[3]  The Tenth Circuit concluded the New York Court of Appeals would likely find the subcontractor’s faulty work was an accidental “occurrence,” following the growing trend of other state high courts that have addressed this coverage issue under commercial general liability (CGL) polices.[4]  Policyholders — whose policies are governed by New York law — should take notice and consider the implications of this decision on whether New York will soon join the majority view that faulty workmanship by a subcontractor can be an occurrence under CGL policies.

Read More

Copyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.